Yes, you can make more money. But you can also lose a lot. You keep your own hours, but you have no control over the ebb and flow of clients and revenue. Defenitely less security. Paying for benefits is a bitch.

First real job I ever had. Did some rough carpentry, painting, and floor finishing before that, though.

Employees know they lack the means to be employers. Employers know it too, but act like complete jerks and run a line of BS like "hah you don't know anything (because you don't own anything)."

A lot employers lack the means to be employers. I couldn't tell you outside of Texas, but a lot of small to medium sized construction companies are taking jobs at a loss right now, plenty are working on bankrupting, and even those that are making it right now are struggling if they don't have government contracts. What the employer in a small business is making is dependent on how the company is structured, but it essentially comes down to profit, even in a situation where the owner is salaried. There are plenty of unprofitable construction companies, especially right now. It's really not difficult to be poor trying to keep an unprofitable company afloat. Many dudes fight to the last dollar to try and keep their baby running. It's not unheard of for struggling owners to take home less than their employees.

I'm not saying the dude is poor (I don't know the man), but your statement about him being part of the upper class on the basis of his family having a company gives some credence to the mentality of "hah you don't know anything (because you don't own anything)."

Sure. Owning a semi or duplex or such generally means the bank owns it, while the employer or landlord or such makes little or no income off it. Even once it's paid off, the owner will use it as collateral on another loan. No debate there.

In the end, the employer's son is the employer, while the employee's son is the employee. A perpetual class distinction.

Sure. Owning a semi or duplex or such generally means the bank owns it, while the employer or landlord or such makes little or no income off it. Even once it's paid off, the owner will use it as collateral on another loan. No debate there.

I'd purposely left that area vague just so I could post a ridiculously condescending response when you didn't consider debt. You ruined it. Harumph

Quote:

In the end, the employer's son is the employer, while the employee's son is the employee. A perpetual class distinction.

I'll give you that one. Certain fields in construction have a significantly smaller class distinction than others though. Any field that requires a master's license to own a business will have owners that don't experience such a pronounced disconnect between themselves and the non office employees because they spent a minimum of 6 years doing that same work. Depending on the capacity that the owner's kid is working, his boss could be foreman and not his father, and done properly that should remove all class differences while on the clock. Granted, it doesn't look like milosz was part of the ground crew. I still maintain that he could be poor.

i always assumed it was doing what you used to do for 50 hours a week and then spending an extra 30 hours a week doing all the stuff your old company employed whole departments to deal with, accounting, payroll, legal, tax etc etc etc

as much as i love the idea of working for myself, i hate the idea of dealing with all that stuff which i have no exeperience or interest in.

This, +1000. I "ditched the 9 to 5", and "struck out on my own" into self-employment....and won a 9 to 10 (pm) job instead Being a boss, and responsible for other people's livelihoods, is a next level of stress I wasn't prepared for, and still not sure I want.

If you have a specialised skill that is valued being self-employed is well worthwhile. I freelanced for about 20 years and did very well at it. I reckon I earned comfortably three times more than a comparable employee. Typically this was working on 3 or 6 month assignments. If you have the right skill set and interview well you can be in work continuously - the longest I was ever out of work was a week (contracts didn't always quite line up). I farmed out the bookkeeping and accounts to an accountant so really there wasn't a lot to do with my company except spend it's money.

My objection to employing people is that I don't want to be responsible for them if I screw up. The idea of my employees not making their mortgage payments because of me is not something I am comfortable with. I employed people for a couple of years and it went well but there was always the issue lurking at the back so in the end I got out. The whole admin side was a non-event - that was just sub-contracted (my hourly rate was higher than theirs so why waste my time?).

From my limited experience, this is incorrect. I'm pretty sure that small business owners can inexpensively replace benefits if they know where to look. There are even some benefits that employers can't offer

-Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are basically triple-tax free -You can secure life insurance and disability insurance at a lower rate (trade associations, etc) than through an employer -The IRS allows you to deduct half of your Social Security tax on Form 1040 -SEP-IRA's and Keogh's allow sheltering of far more money than corporate retirement plans (20% of net income is tax deductible)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dakota rube

And wait until you get your tax bill. Self-employment tax sucks.

Self employment tax in the US is 15.3%, right? (Pays for OASDI and Medicare) When you work for someone, your employer pays half of it. As a small business owner, I'm pretty sure one would have to pay both halves, but that one could deduct half on the Form 1040. Depending on your tax bracket and your state tax deductions, you could end up paying less than you would if you weren't self employed. Again, I'm not an accountant. Just dabbled in small business administration guide books. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Self employment tax in the US is 15.3%, right? (Pays for OASDI and Medicare) When you work for someone, your employer pays half of it. As a small business owner, I'm pretty sure one would have to pay both halves, but that one could deduct half on the Form 1040. Depending on your tax bracket and your state tax deductions, you could end up paying less than you would if you weren't self employed. Again, I'm not an accountant. Just dabbled in small business administration guide books. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

If self employed ... you do indeed pay both "halves." And yes, you are allowed to deduct 50% ... but that's a deduction ... not a write off.